One doesn’t need a crystal ball, the IQ of an Albert Einstein or even ludicrously to consult the Oracle of Delphi to comprehend the origins and requirements of terrorism in our contemporary world, or who its instigators and significantly its beneficiaries are.

In my view it has bugger all to do with religion, which is simply I believe being used as a convenient scapegoat for what are blatant acts of criminality and sadistic indulgement. For if Islam is such a peaceful religion as we’re constantly told why then are so many of its avowed and supposed followers nothing more than a bunch of barbaric, Dark Age and criminal savages?

Analogously you wouldn’t tolerate your dearly loved daughter’s husband, partner or boyfriend consistently and gratuitously knocking the shits out of her and telling you, and what’s more expect you to buy it, that he’s simply physically expressing his love for her. So why, whether you’re a Muslim or not, do you put up with this Islamic crap?

This particular boil has to be lanced and in my opinion the only charitable and comprehensive way to rid ourselves of such bestial brutes and their western puppet masters is through an all out holocaust on their Wahabi and Salafist lairs and of those within them by genuinely concerned, moral and authentic world leaders and their nations getting together in a global enterprise against these savages. For we already know where they are; primarily in the Persian Gulf Arab Bantustans.

And let’s not be squeamish about this; we’ve previously had unwarranted holocausts of Blacks, the indigenous people of the Americas, the Caribbean, Australasia as well as of Jews and the Roma peoples of Europe; so why not the justifiable holocaust of these incorrigible Islamic scumbags?

It’s a truth universally ignored that the vast majority of the difficulties which we find ourselves faced with and like moaning about are caused as a direct consequence of our own actions, wilfully or unthinkingly committed; a situation compounded either by our inability, unwillingness or stupidity to recognize or accept that fact. Think on it!

Laziness, cowardice and a nurtured indifference that is itself spawned by fear, whether real, imagined or contrived, that the individual might be personally disadvantaged were he or she to challenge or depart from the official and accepted narrative of how they should behave or go about doing things and then often and conveniently using that conclusion to avoid having to stand up and be seriously counted on moral, social, political, economic or religious issues is a blinkered approach which can and does impact negatively and even disastrously on the lives of people globally or those in one’s country.

And clearly knowing this to be the case yet still carry on, adamantly refusing to do anything to constructively alleviate some or all of these needlessly imposed afflictions, is an attitude that is beyond the pale; constituting in my opinion the personification of selfishness as well as the most egregious, odious and the worst kind of human betrayal there is! The remedy for which is, of course, in our individual hands.

This poem wasn’t written by me with any profound directives in mind as to how any of you should conscionably or otherwise, independently or collectively, live your individual life. Notwithstanding that though its purpose is to point out that Christmas isn’t about singling out and concentrating exclusively on one specific day in each year and no other; and once that day passes into oblivion everyone can just revert to carrying on as before as though the actuality of Christmas and what it genuinely represents never happened at all, until that is the next one arrives and the customary charade ceremoniously removed from its closeted mothball is allowed to temporarily gain momentum again.

A flawed Christian, as indeed I am, I’m nonetheless fully cognisant of what Christmas is and has from its inception been really all about; and although I’m not or have I ever been a member of the Salvation Army which I wholeheartedly respect and financially support on a regular basis, I do so principally because it’s my honest opinion that it’s the only organization I know of which credibly and fully lives up to its moral, social and religious obligations as it altruistically implements, doing so at times in seemingly impossible circumstances, the unadulterated doctrine of Christmas together with its universal message of comradeship, compassion, benevolence and love to all mankind as it was intended to and should be practised by each and everyone of us; and not just around or only on the 25th December of each year, but consistently and cooperatively throughout the entire year.

And as a positive reminder of this and for their sterling and sometimes unappreciated work carried out 24/7 and 365 days of every year, I humbly dedicate this poem to the Salvation Army.

Like confetti liberally, instinctively and even thoughtlessly at times strewn at the newly weds during an after wedding ceremony most New Year resolutions that are consciously made can be said to fit easily into the same category; an evaluation noticeably reinforced when, like the aforementioned confetti with their function of sportive adornment having been ephemerally fulfilled they are then subsequently subjected to laying trampled under feet and on the ground, discarded and quickly forgotten about.

Curiously, how long do your New Year resolutions actually last? Or do you sensibly refrain from making promises even to yourself let alone others that you either know for certain or possibly feel deep inside that you can’t for whatever reasons honestly keep?

Have an eventful 2014 and here’s wishing you everything that you truly deserve.

Let me make it perfectly and unequivocally clear that paedophilia as etymologically defined and legally proscribed by the laws of the UK and those of all other civilized countries globally I’ve always found to be totally abhorrent, which is an adherence that’s steadfast for me and that nothing will ever change in that regard.

That said I have a similar and implacable abhorrence and utter detestation for as well as a determined aversion to mindless vigilantes. People who’re often troublesomely intellectually challenged; instinctively feral in character and disposition; easily lead, because they’re wholly incapable of thinking for themselves and so become easy prey for those with vested interests and pernicious agendas of their own to fulfil who know this and therefore are well disposed to eagerly manipulating such individuals through their simplistic, invariably misleading but deliberately concocted populist narratives.

Credulous persons that despite their other myriad failings are also persistent and incorrigible attention seekers who unsurprisingly jump on any available and convenient bandwagon which they consider is appropriate to adequately facilitate their stupidity, deflect attention away from their own miscreant behaviour and questionable morality, while at the same time hoping that their manipulated and sycophantically subscribed to actions will compensate for their marked lack of personal judgment and self worth.

The sort of mindless morons for example whose command and comprehension of the English Language, even though it’s supposedly their native tongue, are so poor that they’re wholly incapable of distinguishing the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician, with several tragic instances recorded of innocent members of the latter profession having been gratuitously attacked, seriously injured and even forced to move home by viscous and baying mobs of so-called anti-paedophile vigilantes descending on them for the sins of actual or perceived paedophiles.

Curiously enough, from my perspective, the predatory shark feeding frenzy that instantaneously erupts within significant sections of British society each time an alleged incident of paedophilia or some other associated “crime” is reported in the media is to say the least particularly worrisome, bearing in mind the reality and social acceptability of marital unions between older men and much younger females, the betrothal of infants, particularly among Europe’s royalty and aristocracy, that were acts replete across global cultures and societies in the past, and in 2013, a trend that significantly developed and intensified in the 20th Century and shows no signs whatsoever of letting up, is a commonplace feature and popular preference exercised nowadays by markedly older woman in their relentless search for generally perceived to be more virile and much younger men.

And let’s not forget that as late as the 19th Century in Britain it was also socially acceptable an entrenched practice as well for lords of English manors whenever one of their peasant, usually farm workers on their huge estates, got married, permission this specific lord of the manor had to grant them before they were allowed to do so, that the bride in question on her wedding night had an obligation, which neither she nor her husband could duck out of or had any legal recourse to prevent, that expressly determined she had had to sexually spend the time directly after her wedding, and that included her entire wedding night and however much longer after that the said lord of this manor dictated with him, with the ritual and one could say classic obsequiousness of her bridegroom physically taking his bride to the home of the man that would cover her as breeders do with horses.

Which makes a complete mockery in my view of these obsessive and predominantly English ancestry searches nowadays by Britons researching their alleged family trees, since by the time these brides were handed back to their lawful husbands they were invariably pregnant by their permitted seducer, and no amount of enthusiastic covering of their own which was subsequently carried out by these respective husband was going to diminish in any way or alter the indisputable fact that the children their wives bore, initially at any rate, and which they then took on the role of father to weren’t their own, no matter how much they deluded themselves, wished it to be, and even accepted it as otherwise than what it really was.

Logically in any progressively minded society situations and attitudes are meant to change for the better and enlightened individuals, regardless of how entrenched these social customs or cultural conventions were, sensibly accept that they must go and as a result do everything in their power to ably assist this process. And the sexual, marital and conjugal relationships between ostensibly matured adults, of whatever gender, and legally acknowledged underage minors however physically developed these boys or girls are or how sexually aware they appear to be must rightfully in my opinion be socially circumscribed and the transgressors legally punished.

But playing Devil’s Advocate here despite being a committed Christian myself, what’s to stop an outright cynic or atheist from logically asking why does Christianity specifically and the other sections of the religious world in general, notably so the two monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam both of whom recognize the phenomenal importance of Jesus Christ and his “miraculous” birth, continue to laud not only his earthly works but significantly too the circumstances of his birth, the latter of which would be routinely condemned and dismissed as absolutely ludicrous as I said earlier in this piece were it to happen in any circumstance in the 21st Century? Food for thought, wouldn’t you say?

This poem I must point out isn’t something I decided to embark on because it’s Christmas time and therefore felt it incumbent on me to do my bit during the Yuletide festival. Far from it, as I’m not a follower and specifically like doing my own thing and that applies equally to Christmas as it does to everything else. But in 1984 I wrote, produced and directed a quite successful community play using this same theme as the core element of that play. The play had a number of favourable and well intentioned reviews and when one of the cast in the know let on that I was in the final stages of expanding the said play into a novel I had many enquiries and some very interesting offers to have this novel published.

I turned them all down, significantly because I don’t need the money or am I desperate for the publicity, but principally because when I do have this novel, long completed, eventually published its publication will be on my terms as well as do full credit to the integrity of my work and what I specifically want to convey. In the meantime the novel itself and its title, a precautionary measure against plagiarism, will remain firmly under wraps until I determine otherwise; and for the time being I’m afraid you’ll have to make do with this much later and contemporary poem.

Happy Christmas and enjoy it in the same spirit which you would wish for other to extend towards you.

It was the cherished belief of Nelson Mandela and one fully endorsed by those of us who strive to emulate him and his ideals that to be free is not simply to cast off one’s chains of oppression but rather as well to live life in a way that respects, empowers and enhances the freedom and dignity of others, reinforcing as a consequence their integrity as human beings along with that of our own.

Let’s all then do our very best to fulfil those aspirations that this phenomenally great man lived and sacrificed his life for, and in the process fittingly keep his memory and legacy permanently alive.

Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika! And Tata Madiba! Rest in Peace and rise in Glory.

Monday, 9 December 2013

The courageous, logical and absolutely sensible decision of three High Court judges to lift the immunity previously granted to and which, irresponsibly and unacceptably so in my view, prevented the naming of the sick, contemptible, sadistic and cold blooded murderer Alexander Blackman is to be wholly commended and applauded. And all the bullshit promulgated by some that he and his actions were a causality of war is just that, since there is definitely no way that this terminology would have been applied to the killers of the white British Army MPs that were killed by a rampaging mob in Iraq and for whom these same aficionadas of Alexander Blackman not only screamed blue murder at their demise but were also most assiduous and vociferous in their demands that our soldiers received justice. Not so it would seem, as we all know is routinely the case, when the victim isn’t white and western, as Caucasian lives so runs their rather twisted narrative are infinitely more precious that non-White ones.

We have in Britain several members of the US Armed Forces that are lawfully here but whose presence in our midst is none the less as a direct consequence of the UK’s post-war and grovelling sycophancy to the American Empire, anything it would seem on the part of our leaders to delude themselves that by kowtowing to the US’s every whim and fancy Britain can maintain the risible deception that it’s still a significant player in world affairs by clinging to the coattails of the USA; this despite the fact that it’s universally known that no foreign forces or bases are allowed on American soil, not least so because no self respecting US citizen or that country’s Congress for that matter would allow it, but specifically as well because the US Constitution expressly forbids this.

So just imagine then that some equally sadistic, US low life, like our poster boy for some Alexander Blackman clearly is, were to likewise callously kill a white Briton in identical circumstances within Britain, or God forbid such a coldblooded murder was carried out by a serving member of the armed forces of some country, you choose your pick, that having illegally invaded England had similarly murdered a Briton within his own country the UK, whether this Briton was a member of our regular armed forces, the Territorial Army or simply belonged to an irregular guerrilla unit, whether we like it or not or designated it as such, like the Taliban is in Afghanistan, but in the specific case of the UK the murdered victim was simply defending the sovereignty and integrity of our country while seeking to repulse those who’d invaded it like the Taliban are likewise doing in Afghanistan. Do you think for one moment that the killer of our own in the exact circumstances that Alexander Blackman perpetrated his murder of that Afghan would generate the same sympathy, understanding and sick calls for his release? Save your breath and your excuses for we all know what the true answer, if you’re honest with yourself, to that question is.

At no time was Alexander Blackman’s life in danger from the man he so savagely killed. He wasn’t involved in any fire fight with these supposed Taliban members and it’s a fact that the colleagues of the man Alexander Blackman murdered were killed by an attack helicopter and not the squad of marines that Blackman was with, and who were instructed by that helicopter crew to investigate the outcome of their handiwork. However on discovering that the murdered man’s mates were already dead Blackman took it upon himself to drag the man he later killed into a concealed area away from the view of the helicopter crew, knowing this man to be still alive, and there cold-bloodedly murdered him. By any logical and unbiased interpretation of the rules of war, combat engagement and more specifically the Geneva Conventions what Alexander Blackman did wasn’t only premeditated murder but also a war crime.

And before likeminded morons like him within our population pooh-pooh the principles of the Geneva Convention let me remind you that it was the west, principally Britain and the US, which together devised, codified and largely controlled the implementation post-war, and still do to this day, the instruments of the Geneva Convention just as from their sanctimonious ivory tower as permanent members of the UN Security Council they’ve done and continue to do the same with those of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which predictably only prosecutes Blacks and is routinely, threateningly and prejudicially used against others that the west has it in for, regardless of how real or mostly imaginary their alleged targets’ crimes are; but crucially no such activities are ever directed against whites of whom there are plenty of mass murderers, war criminals, perpetrators of crimes against humanity along with carried out by those of their equally criminal conspirators within the UK and the US for example; and significantly I must stress at the very highest echelons of our political, military and social hierarchies. And if we expect others to abide by internationally subscribed to conventions, which the west wastes no time pushing down the throats of others they accuse of breaching them why the hell then shouldn’t the west and its various agencies, whether these are civil or military, similarly abide by them?

That’s why I was particularly pleased and extremely heartened by the decision of the judges who didn’t mince their words in describing the heartless killing by Alexander Blackman in the way they did, labelling it as one motivated by contempt. Which categorically debunks the crap of Blackman himself who asininely stated and actually expected those of us with functioning brain cells in our heads to believe him when he said that he fired his targeted bullet into the body of dead man. Why on earth attempt to kill someone whom you already thought was dead? Answer that? It doesn’t make sense, does it? And to my mind would be analogous to a serial rapisthaving emphasized that his young victim, and let’s say for argument sake your daughter, sister, other close female relative or friend was wearing exceedingly provocative clothing, was pissed out of their head from alcohol, drugs or whatever, that he found her lying unconscious, decided to rape her as in her physical and mental state he didn’t think she would mind; but guess what, in his quite predatory, wholly unprovoked and sexual attack on her he then surmises to the court, in which he’s being tried, that he most probably got too aggressive, fearful she might regain consciousness and resist him before he’d reached his orgasm and so ended up strangling her too.

Let’s see or hear you defend this bastard bearing in mind it’s either your own flesh and blood or someone whom you know well that is the victim. You can’t and what’s more you certainly won’t! So where does that put you then, vis-à-vis the gratuitous murder of this Afghan man by Alexander Blackman which you so prejudicially defend and that in itself blatantly breaks all the rules of decency and the so-called civilized standards of behaviour that you conceitedly and sanctimoniously prize yourselves on upholding, except to place you firmly and irretrievably in the sewers of hypocrisy and double standards where you rightfully belong?

Like many of my close relatives before, including my Dad, who collectively freely served in every branch of the British Armed Forces I willingly enlisted in the Royal Air Force while a student at university, and went on to serve with some of our well-known Fighter Commands. But just as in everyday life there I came across a variety of characters, most of whom were perfectly decent human beings although there were others that I utterly despised and with perfect justification, as they were right bastards who I didn’t trust as far as I could throw them. And what I do know from my daily interaction with and even courts-martial of some of them that their mindset wasn’t my own and just because we were jointly in the same military outfit it didn’t mean that I was obligated to condoning or supporting their actions, either ignoring or covering these up, or even more asininely pretend to myself that they were indicative of the RAF as a whole, and as such should be tolerated, not condemned or personally dealt with by me if these activities fell within my remit or else promptly reported to my superiors if they didn’t. Conscionably I had no problem at all with any of that nor would I ever have done since the RAF, its ethos and naturally its functionalities didn’t revolve around any one individual however exemplary, vile or outright evil he or she might be.

So why then, I rhetorically ask myself as I know the answer already, do the likes of David Cameron and particularly those armchair generals that have never worn a British military uniform in earnest, would be most disinclined to do so but are all the same obsessively and fanatically keen to defend Britain to the last drop of somebody else’s blood but never their own or that of their nearest and dearest, and worst of all Armed Forces chiefs, especially those that are now retired, feel that they have to defend, if there’s realistically no real pressing need for them to do so, the reputation of any branch of the British Armed Forces whenever a prime example of the most feral and detrital of human beings from within our communities that was regrettably and quite unpardonably allowed to infest that specific branch of our Armed Forces predictably behave as all sociopaths do?

And rather than Facebook cretins actively campaigning to have Alexander Blackman released I personally feel that he should be locked up for the rest of his natural life; the downside of that of course is that it’s not these rather pathetic morons on Facebook and other social media who’re asininely climbing on board Alexander Blackman’s stalled bandwagon, most of whom are probably not making any productive contribution to the British economy anyway, never have and are most unlikely ever to do so, but as is always the case the principled, decent and hard-working British taxpayers who will be the ones inevitably left footing the bill to keep Alexander Blackman and his ilk in prison.

My British, Caribbean and American who participated in the defence of Britain and the subsequent liberation of Europe during World War II are extremely proud of the roles they played and the outcome of that war. But I don’t know of a single one of them not even those who flew as pilots with the RAF but thankfully were not involved themselves in the latter’s murkier escapades, because I specially asked them about this, who either at the time or subsequently have delighted in much less hailed as a glorious triumph of the war the wholesale firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg specifically on the orders of the British Government attendantwith the wilful destruction of these two cities and the gratuitous sacrifice of life there; and this despite the British authorities, the UK’s military top brass and practically everyone else involved in the war definitely knowing that Germany was on its knees, had already lost the war and was actually about to surrender to the Allies.

It’s a sentiment shared by my relatives’ wartime friends and colleagues that I spoke to and discussed the matter at length with as well as Germans I was fortunate to meet and in a number of cases interview in Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg and Hannover having lived and worked in the latter two cities myself; all of whom are unanimous in unequivocally condemning what barbarically took place at the behest of Britain as nothing less than the most heinous of war crimes. And in agreeing with them I must also frankly add that for all the British authorities’ sanctimonious posturing whenever something goes terribly amiss as clearly happened in the Alexander Blackman case that Britain and the British military per se, despite all the contrary narrative they usually jointly spin in such circumstances are in effect skating of very thin ice since they both have past form in this regard and on a global scale.

But of course the British Government didn’t hold itself to the same standards that it accused and at Nuremburg prosecuted and executed its German political and military counterparts for contravening they asserted; in the same manner that subsequent British governments up to and including the present one (2013) have always routinely obfuscated and rarely hold themselves up to the same rigorous and objective legal and moral standards that they collectively demand of others, particularly those they unwarrantedly dislike or fear. Hypocriscy, double standards or what; or simply the British way?

That said other aspects of the war including the often brutal aerial dogfights between the German Luftwaffe and themselves that effectively and greatly assisted in the defeat of the evils of Nazism and Fascism in Europe my World War II, RAF veteran relatives have nothing but the greatest admiration and praise for. Which unquestionably tells me that those with consciences and a moral compass to boot instinctively know the difference between right and wrong; and defending Alexander Blackman in any shape or form for what he barbarically did falls squarely in the latter category. And frankly I have no qualms at all in saying so.

For while I’ll happily defend my country with every resource at my disposal if it’s genuinely necessary to justly do so, I don’t wish to nor will I ever play any part in the chicanery, brazen hypocrisy or the grotesque and inappropriate double standards that are replete among many of my fellow Brits who excel in confusing their sick and rabid nationalism with and even conflating and equating it to a genuine love for and patriotism of our country. And it’s not naïveté on my part to say so or distance myself from them but rather a determined calculation for the greater good!

In 2013 the government of the Russian Federation sensibly and quite correctly in my view passed a law with the specifically intended purpose, it must be stressed, of dissuading and ultimately prohibiting anyone within its territory from encouraging or engaging in the proselytization of that country’s minors principally promoted and largely instigated by western external forces meddling in Russia’s domestic affairs under the misguided and rather disingenuous pretext of supposedly educating these youngsters about the positive aspects of homosexuality.

Unsurprisingly even before this legislative ruling was given assent in the Duma and signed into law by President Putin all hell broke loose in the west with slick choreographed campaigns of fake outrage against Russia’s decision staged by the west’s media, its chattering classes, pseudo homosexual activists and vested interests with their personal axes to grind, and of course fiercely ambitious and self-serving MPs who fully cognisant of the importance of the so-called pink vote and quite determined at all costs to cash in on it, predictably and most eagerly jumped on the bandwagon juggernaut promptly seized, rolled out and liberally utilized by those taking to ridiculing and vilifying Russia and particularly its President as they accumulatively levelled all sorts of pernicious accusations at them, including the perennial old chestnut of human rights violations.

However, Russia’s legislative and executive branches of government weren’t the only ones in the line of fire of this abusive western condemnation, for when Elena Isinbaeva, Russia’s renowned female Olympic and current (2013) world record holder in the pole vault, was asked what she thought of the law that was enacted and honestly replied that she supported her country’s democratic right to approve what laws it saw fit in the best interests of its citizens in the same way that western countries do, she too was slated mercilessly with the additional affront heaped on her in the way of deafening calls made from influential groups in the west demanding she should be summarily ostracised and speedily stripped of her commercial endorsements; the same groups among others that were also insisting that the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi to be hosted by Russia should themselves be boycotted.

In response to the unfair treatment meted out to Elena Isinbaeva and the wider issue of this anti-proselytizing of homosexuality law now on the Russian statute books and aimed at the protection of Russian minors I wrote an article entitled: “Elena Isinbaeva and the west’s self-righteous penchant for creating bogus enemies” which is online and can also be found on my personal website http://www.politicoacademic.blogspot.com. That article generated a great deal of interest and positive feedback globally and is primarily why this poem is written and has absolutely nothing to do with ensuing events either in Britain or elsewhere pertaining to former closet homosexuals, regardless of whether they be obscure or well-known individuals, that for whatever reason, be it egotism or self-guilt, have belatedly chosen to publicly declare to all and sundry that they’re homosexual.

Notwithstanding that I will nevertheless say this, because it’s something that I intrinsically believe in; namely that one’s sexuality and whomsoever they practise it with, or not at all, within the legal framework of their country’s instituted laws is, in my opinion, strictly a private matter that should be treated and respected as such and not used as an issue for public grandstanding, the garnering of attention seeking plaudits or, for that matter, ostentatious guilt-ridden flagellantism.

Meanwhile, the pungent smell of hypocrisy by the west and most notably the Anglophile countries therein is invasive, debilitating and widespread and raises the pertinent question as to why with its own intractable problems in this regard the west nevertheless readily sallies forth in its often caustic condemnation of others on a matter it is yet to demonstrably tackle and resolve. Not for nothing is the dictum “don’t ask; don’t tell so pervasive throughout all branches of the US military for example, where homosexuality to put it mildly is at best a taboo subject and treated as such. And equally it would be a brave but foolish individual who having decided to run for high political or some other prominent public office in the United States or have his or her name put forward for an equivalent position in the corporate world of big business to then openly declare he or she was a practising homosexual and seriously expect to succeed in that endeavour.

And on our side of the Atlantic Britain and the rest of the EU aren’t immune from this stance on homosexuality or the contagion of homophobia either, no matter how vaingloriously the powers that be who influence policy decisions or run these countries pretend otherwise; for in reality it’s all a deliberate and carefully fabricated smoke screen from behind which much is extravagantly promised but very little is actually delivered.

Here’s an indication of what I mean. The marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton enthused most of the British public, the Commonwealth, and significant numbers of other people across the globe and markedly pushed the approval rating of the British Monarchy way of the Richter scale of transcendent popularity. But wilfully playing Devil’s advocate here but in no way impugning or seeking to do so the sexuality of Prince William, which I freely confess I know absolutely nothing about and frankly care even less as it’s none of my business, just suppose that instead of the lovely Kate Middleton, elevated after her marriage to the status of Duchess of Cambridge and made a prominent member of the British Royal Family, it was a bloke, a Kenny Middleton for argument sake, that Prince William had wed and thereafter had proudly walked down the aisle of one of our historical and iconic English cathedrals with on his arm.

Assuming, that is, that this hypothetical homosexual relationship had been allowed to get this far with Buckingham Palace and the Con-Dem coalition regime headed by Prime Minister David Cameron having debatably given their blessing to and approval for it. What in the aforesaid circumstances do you think the gut instinct reactions of Britons generally across our green and pleasant land as well as attitudes in the Commonwealth, and especially those countries where Her Majesty the Queen is still head of state, and where their leaders have only belatedly come around after much intransigent heart searching and heated discussions to the logical idea in my view that royal princes in line to the British throne should no longer have automatic preference to accession over their older female siblings and counterparts; the world at large; and you yourself would be?

The question put here is largely rhetorical in nature as I’m positive we all know the answer to it; which begs the other obvious question that the first one naturally now triggers. If at best one can expect only ambivalence and at its worst outright antipathy and even hatred towards an open and honest homosexual relationship of this kind that evidently would nevertheless rock the core values as perceived and generally adhered to by the vast majority of those who constitute the British nation, something that the powers that be within our country recognize and accept, why then do these same people conceitedly think that they have an inalienable right to lecture and even dictate to others, in what are indisputably sovereign states, how they should approach and eventually deal with the matter of homosexuality within their own countries?

The British attitude to homosexuality reminds me very much of that which bedevils racism in our country, in as much that it’s extremely difficult to find anyone who will willingly own up to their concealed prejudices regarding either or both of these issues with respondents invariably and disingenuously remarking in the majority of cases in which they’re questioned about either of them that on reaching the age of majority and thus effectively becoming an adult as it were, those who’ve successfully managed to make this transition from childhood and adolescence should be free, within the realms of the law, accepted ethical boundaries, and without undue interference in or coercion from anyone, to make what decisions they consider are appropriate for themselves together with the inalienable right to live their own life as they please and with whomsoever they mutually choose to.

Reality though is quite different and often as several mixed race couples and potential ones have painfully and embarrassingly discovered to their dismay and chagrin a bridge too far, having had their relationships firmly rebuffed and cruelly so even by so-called liberal white Caucasian parents, other family members, friends and most incredibly neighbours and work colleagues when one of those personally involved in a mixed race relationship is himself or herself white Caucasian as well or even British Asian.

And ironically as it seems with those opponents of familial mixed raced unions involving one of their own and who would be the first to declare that they weren’t racist even stating that they fully subscribed to the concept of everyone being treated equally and fairly in all matters but somehow not when that “everyone”, no matter how exemplary and worthy as a human being that individual is, he or she in relation to their own family or friendship circles is distinctly of a different race and skin colour.

Two specific criteria that they obviously deem are alright where other people are concerned but clearly don’t fit into these antagonists1 personal scheme of things; and when questioned or even challenged about their supposed tolerant and liberal credentials that they brazenly flaunt and remarkably don’t appear in the aforesaid circumstances to mind doing so or see any contradiction in what they doing, their kneejerk response is always one along these lines, that while they will arguably concede that some mixed race marriages or relationships might be suitable and appropriate for others, they nevertheless feel and are completely convinced, without ever satisfactorily or convincingly explaining why, that a mixed race union between their much-loved son, daughter, other relative or friend and some one from a different race or ethic background would be most inappropriate. The same cynical obfuscation together with a baffling but astonishing hypocrisy that’s replete in attitudes to homosexuality, I’m afraid.

In conclusion wilful deception in any relationship that is mutually understood to be a meaningful one by those who freely embarked on it is simply abhorrent, a situation to be roundly deplored, and a personal betrayal of whoever is on the receiving end of it. And when unknowingly to the person affected the perpetrator wittingly and for purely self-serving reasons traduces the said relationship to nothing more than a debasing farce, such actions, unpardonable, loathsome and insupportable in themselves, should on their discovery by the abused person swiftly, forthrightly and fearlessly be condemned and instantaneously walked away from. To refrain from doing so would, I fear, be to cowardly collude in negating one’s self worth and significantly constitute a violation of and a gross insult to that person’s personal integrity as a worthy human being.

About Me

I'm a highly intelligent, articulate and well-educated human being with an intuitive but enterprising sense of responsibility and a strong moral compass that instinctively demarcates what's right and wrong.
Trust, confidentiality and having the courage, regardless of what I do, to formulate and stand by my own personal convictions are key aspects of my life and, unsurprisingly, are also principal characteristics I attach great importance to and naturally expect from those who want to play a meaningful role in my life.
I don't suffer fools gladly, in fact not at all and most definitely haven’t got any interest in or time for egotists, time-wasters, attention seekers or the narcissistic.
Furthermore, I’m an adult and in my private and professional lives prefer to deal with genuine adults, so anyone who wants to act childishly and thinks they can have any kind of relationship with me, then you’re wrong!
And my advice to you in that regard is to go and enrol in a kindergarten as you'll possibly have better luck there.
My twitter feed if you're interested is: www.twitter.com/DerAkademiker.